BILLY COBB WESTBROOK, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH BACSKAI AND WILLIAM JOSEPH BEHRENS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial judge did not err in withdrawing the issue of permanent injury damages from the jury because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable probability of permanent injury proximately resulting from the accident.
The plaintiff sued for personal injuries, admitting liability prior to trial. A jury awarded $750, but the plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Speculative Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was the plaintiff below in an action for personal injuries. Liability was admitted prior to trial and the jury’s verdict was for the plaintiff in amount of $750. The trial judge denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and this appeal followed. The plaintiff grounded his motion for a new trial, and assigns as error, the action of the trial judge in withdrawing from the jury’s consideration the issue of damages for alleged permanent injury as being unsupported by the evidence. A careful review of all the evidence reveáis that the ruling assigned was not error.
The burden is upon the plaintiff, claiming permanent injury, to offer evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable probability that permanent injury exists as a proximate result of the accident which is the subject of the action before the court. Stores v. Hussey, Fla.App.1959, 100 So.2d 649; cf. William Penn Hotel v. Cohen, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 404.
In the instant case we have successive injuries and there was no evidence upon which a jury of reasonable men could have assigned permanent injury to the last accident. Before liability for negligence can arise, it is necessary that a causal relation should be shown to exist between the damage and the act alleged to have occasioned it. Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 56 Fla. 735, 48 So. 209, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 134; Harvin v. Kenan, 157 Fla. 603, 26 So.2d 668.
Arguing facts not in evidence or not warranted from the evidence is not permitted in trial courts of this state. Although counsel is allowed a broad latitude in presenting his case to the jury, he should at all times confine his argument to the evidence and issues presented, with the logical deductions therefrom. Alford v. Barnett Nat. Bank of Jacksonville, 137 Fla. 564, 188 So. 322, 329.
The trial judge was correct in refusing argument upon permanent injury, for, if the jury had returned a verdict for permanent injury, it would have been based upon pure speculation.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J,, and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doyle Pope v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., Inc., 120 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…is for liability. The judgment appealed from is accordingly reversed with directions that it be set aside and a judgment be entered dismissing the cause. Reversed. STURGIS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur. . Westbrook v. Bacskai, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 241; Key West Elec. Co. v. Albury, 1926, 91 Fla. 695, 109 So. 223; Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1908, 56 Fla. 735, 48 So. 209, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 134. . Tampa Elec. Co. v. Jones, 1939, 138 Fla. 746, 190 So. 26; Benedict Pineapple Co. v. Atlanti…
-
Riggins v. Mariner Boat Works, Inc., 545 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…nts must be confined to the evidence and to the issues and inferences which can be drawn from the evidence. Alford v. Barnett Nat’l Bank, 188 So. 322, 137 Fla. 564 (1939); Harrold v. Schluep, 264 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Westbrook v. Bacskai, 103 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). The law is equally well settled, however, that an improper closing argument will not result in a new trial unless the statements are highly prejudicial, inflammatory, and improper. Decks, Inc. v. Nunez, 299 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DC…
-
Harrold v. Schluep, 264 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…uestion the veracity of the only independent witness to the collision and aftermath. Closing argument is restricted to the evidence and issues presented and the inferences which can be drawn from the evidence. Westbrook v. Bacskai, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So. 2d 241, a personal injury case, held that counsel can not argue facts not in evidence or not warranted by the evidence. Pleadings are not admissible in evidence to prove or disprove a fact in issue. Hines v. Trager Construction Co., Fla.App. [*436] 1966…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. The Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 56 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1908)
- Alford v. The Barnett Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 137 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1939)
- William Penn Hotel, Inc. v. Barnett Cohen, 101 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Azzalee Harvin and her husband Edward Harvin v. Kenan, 157 Fla. 603 (Fla. 1946)
- Robert P. Stores v. Amos B. Hussey, 100 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)